Originally Posted by Asbjoern
Well, I wouldn't say that the newspost at RPGCodex doesn't clearly state which patch is the "right" one.

The news post, and subsequent posts of mine in the comments thread, were made with two things in mind. First, the patch author refers to it as a true patch and that's pretty much the established nomenclature, just as much as Wesp usually refers to his works as unofficial patches. Also, the intention wasn't to claim each one is right but rather, to point out that one of the patches more closely follows its namesake than the other - Acrimonious' work is made with the intention of fixing or restoring content, whereas Wesp's work is made with the same intention as well as to provide other changes based on input or community requests - which may not address problems at all.

Which one is the "right" one is entirely up to the end user who decides to use them. But one of them does a lot more than simple patching and I believe I needed to point out the differences. After all, there wouldn't be much of a point in bringing up another patch to the community if it didn't do anything different or if it didn't focus on anything else.

A patch is not only about fixing bugs. Patches correct unfinished games and that includes bugs, rebalancing ect.

But surely you can see the difference between a modification designed to fix problems with a computer game and a modification designed to change game mechanics to better suit a modder's tastes? After all, changing weapon names so they more closely resemble their real life counterparts isn't a fix to compatibility or stability issues. Changing quest structure and reward because some people want more XP out of a particular event - which was what prompted several changes in quests - isn't fixing a bug, it borders on being a partial conversion.